Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae of the Supreme Pontiff

Introduction by David Trumbull

Until the twentieth century all major Christian bodies prohibited the use of contraceptives.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century the Catholic Church was the sole remaining
major Christian body consistently opposed to artificial contraception. Over that
century secular society, which formerly had, for the most part, at least officially,
agreed with the Church that contraception is an evil not to be permitted,
came to not only accept contraception, but to actively embrace it, promote it,
and subsidize it. Most Protestant groups, after initial opposition,
came 'round to accept contraception. Even the Orthodox churches, which in 1968,
applauded Humanae Vitae modified, at least in some cases, their
teaching to accomodate contracepting Christian married couples.

While not necessarily the first Christian body to allow contraception,
the approval given by the Anglican bishops at the 1930 Lambeth Conference
shook up the Chrisian world. Lambeth Resolution 15 stated:

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles.
The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and
self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation
to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees
that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles.
The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness,
luxury, or mere convenience.

This "pastoral" language, directed toward "difficult cases," coupled with the caveat that contraception not be used for "motives of selfishness,
luxury, or mere convenience" is precisely the language that in the 1960s was used by those who sought to relax
the traditional moral teaching of the Catholic Church. The response of many Christian bodies in 1930
to Lambeth was denunciation and reaffirmation of the traditional teaching. The Catholic response
to Lambeth was Pius XI's encyclical letter
Casti Connubii.
The radicalism of the Anglican bishops in 1930 is clear when we consider that a mere decade earlier, at the
1920 Lambeth Conference they maintained the traditional teaching of all Christians.

The Conference, while declining to lay down rules which will meet the needs of every abnormal case, regards with grave concern
the spread in modern society of theories and practices hostile to the family. We utter an emphatic warning against the use of
unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers - physical, moral and religious - thereby incurred,
and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In opposition to the teaching which, under the name
of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself,
we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing considerations of Christian marriage.
One is the primary purpose for which marriage exists, namely the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of children;
the other is the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control.
We desire solemnly to commend what we have said to Christian people and to all who will hear.--Resolution 68

and

The Conference urges the importance of enlisting the help of all high-principled men and women, whatever be their
religious beliefs, in co-operation with or, if necessary, in bringing pressure to bear upon, authorities both national
and local, for removing such incentives to vice as indecent literature, suggestive plays and films, the open or secret
sale of contraceptives, and the continued existence of brothels. --Resolution 70

What a difference a decade -- but, after all, not just any decade, but the 1920s -- makes. For more on the dizzingly speed and extent
of social change in that decade see Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920s by Frederick Lewis Allen (1931).
The 1930 Lambeth Conference is also a cautionary tale for those who would make church teaching subject to majority vote at a convention.

With the marketing of the combined (oestrogen and progestogen) oral contraceptive pill ("The Pill") beginning in 1960,
demands that the Catholic Church "update" its teaching escalated.
In 1963 Pope John XXIII appointed six non-theologians a Papal Commission for the Study of Problems of the Family, Population, and Birth Rate.
Pope Paul VI added theologians to the Commission and over three years expanded it to 72 members,
with an executive committee of 16 bishops, including seven cardinals. In 1966 the Commission
gave its report to the Pope, advising relaxation of the Church's traditional
teaching that contraception is always illicit. The report was leaked to the
press and is commonly referred to as the Majority Report.
American Jesuit theologian John Ford and three other member of the Commission dissented in what has become known as the
Minority Report.

the "complexity of modern life" warrants re-evaluation of traditional teaching
against contraception,

"the church in Vatican Council II has entered into dialogue [with the world]," and

while the teaching of the Church has remained unchanged, the application of the teaching has been "in evolution"

1. The "complexity of modern life," as a concept, is the central argument, and appears in several phrasings such as:

"the changes occurring today in almost every field,"

"the large amount of knoweldge and facts which throw light to today's world,"

"changes in matrimony and the family, especially in the role of woman; lowering of the infant mortality rate; new bodies of knowledge in biology, psychology, sexuality and demography; a changed estimation of the value and meaning of human sexuality and of conjugal relations; most of all a better grasp of the duty of man to humanize and to bring to greater perfection for the life of man what is given in nature."

"better, deeper, and more correct understanding of conjugal life,"

"new elements which today are discerned in tradition under the influence of new knowledge and facts,"

"problem in today's terms is new and has not been proposed before,"

"in light of the new data these elements are being explained and made more precise," and

"immense difficulties and profound transformations which have arisen from the conditions of contemporary life."

2. The Majority Report depends heavily on the documents
of Vatican II, citing them nearly 20 times. Nearly all the citations are from one document, the
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today,
which itself refers to
Casti Connubii and the statements of Pius XII and to an address by Paul VI, the author of Humanae Vitae.
There is one sentence from the pre-Vatican II document
Casti Connubii.
The pre-Vatican II document
Arcanum
is mentioned but with no direct citation and Pius XII is referenced but, also, with no specific citation.
There are a half dozen citations from the New Testament and one from the Old, none
of which directly addresses the question of contraception.

3. What the Majority Report means by evolution of the teaching is unclear, largely
due to the report's sparse citation of historic documents. The report states:

This maturation has been prepared and has already begun. The magisterium itself is in evolution.
Leo XIII spoke less explicitly in his encyclical Arcanum than did Pius XI in his wonderful doctrinal synthesis
of Casti Connubii of 1930 which gave a fresh start to so many beginnings in a living conjugal spirituality.
He proclaimed, using the very words of the Roman Catechism, the importance, in a true sense the primary importance,
of true conjugal love for the community of matrimony. The notion of responsible parenthood which is implied in the
notion of a prudent and generous regulation of conception, advanced in Vatican Council II, had already been prepared
by Pius XII. The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile periods of the woman-that the application
is legitimate presupposes right motives-makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and
its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded

and

A couple (unio conjugum) ought to be considered above all a community of persons which has in itself the beginning
of new human life. Therefore those things which strengthen and make more profound the union of persons within this community
must never be separated from the procreative finality which specifies the conjugal community. Pius XI, in Casti Connubii already,
referring to the tradition expressed in the Roman Catechism, said: "This mutual inward molding of a husband and wife, this determined
effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony
be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely
as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof" (AAS, XXII, 1930, p.547).

To take this in chronological order, Leo XIII in 1880, reaffirmed the teaching of the Roman Catechism that
"in strict truth, was marriage instituted for the propagation of the human race,"
while Pius XI in the passage (#24) from the 1930 document
Casti Connubii quoted above
may be read as expanding the purpose of marriage, however, as the Report acknowledges, that
statement is no more than the "tradition expressed in the Roman Catechism" -- hardly "evoluton" of the teaching.

The Report also sees "evolution" in "The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile periods of the woman,"
as articulated by Pius XI in Casti Connubii at #59

Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper
manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth.
For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid,
the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider
so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

However, this is no "evolution" as the "rhythm method" had been held acceptible by the church since at least the mid-19th century.
Furthermore, Pius XI, far from deviating from the tradional teaching that contraception is illicit, rather,
reaffirms it in strong tones stating:

Casti Connubii, 54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature
may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature
for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against
nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

and

Casti Connubii, 55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this
horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate
wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and
the Lord killed him for it."

Finally, the Report refers to, but gives no specific citation from, Pius XII, who advocated the "rhythm method," hardly an "evolution" considering
that he did not go beyond public pronouncements of the Church going back a hundred years.

All in all, the report reminds one of the old line about aruging the defense in a case at law: If you have the law on your side,
argue the law; if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts; if neither the law nor the facts are on your side,
throw your client on the mercy of the court. The authors of the Majority Report find
the traditional teaching to be a hard one to live up to and, therefore, propose a more compassionate alternative --

Therefore the morality of sexual acts between married people takes its meaning first of all and specifically from the
ordering of their actions in a fruitful married life, that is one which is practiced with responsible, generous
and prudent parenthood. It does not then depend upon the direct fecundity of each and every particular act. Moreover
the morality of every martial act depends upon the requirements of mutual love in all its aspects. In a word, the morality of
sexual actions is thus to be judged by the true exigencies of the nature of human sexuality, whose meaning is maintained and
promoted especially by conjugal chastity as we have said above.

One would think that 60-some persons working on the question for three years could have come up with better arguments for
relaxing the teaching.

In the so-called Minority Report, John Ford focuses on the central question,
"is contraception always seriously evil?" If so the Church cannot change her teaching.

First the Report examines the recent teaching of the Church and finds three major twentieth century Papal documents,
John XXIII's Mater et Magistra,
Pius XII's Address to Italian Association of Catholic Midwives, and
Pius XI's Casti Connubii.
Eight additional documents from Pius XII are also referenced.
Secondly the Report cites several examples of twentieth century bishops addressing the issue and notes that "the Holy See between 1816 and 1929,
through the Roman curia, answered in this matter 19 times. Finally the Report asserts that through her entire history the Church has
consistantly held that contraception is sinful. "Evolution," it is true, may be observed in the doctrine of marriage, but not so
with regard to contraception.

Ford exposes five erroneous arguments against the traditional teaching.

1. Some say that the teaching arises from the command in Genesis "increase and multiply," whereas the traditional
teaching is found in the understanding that contraception is analogous to homicide.

2. Some say the traditional teaching reflects the need for large families in mainly agricultural communities in
a time of high infant morality, whereas "both St. Augustine and St. Thomas taught that our earch was already
sufficiently populated."

3. Some have mistaken the development of the doctrine regarding matrimony for evolution in the teaching regarding contraception.

4. Some say that the traditional teaching was based an incorrect understanding that all conjugal acts were procreative, whereas
older thinkers knew that "many conjugal acts are actually sterile" and, furthermore,
to the extent that we have better scientific knowledge about fertility
that knowledge should, rather, "invite us to have a greater respect for them."

5. Others say that the traditional teaching reflects an obsolete view of
nature as fixed by God, whereas the the generative process is "inviolably" not
because it is natural but because human life itself "is not under man's dominion."

In place of the five erroneous theories of the traditional teaching, Ford sets forth
five reasons why the Church teaches that contraception is always seriously evil.

1. Generative acts are destined by their nature to the good of the human species.

2. As human life itself is removed from the dominion of man, so the generative
process is removed from his dominion.

3. For the above arguments arises "the ancient traditional analogy to homicide"
which accounts for "the severity with which the Fathers, the theologians
and all faithful Christians have constantly rejected contraception."

4. Procreation is good of itself, therefore to destroy it is evil;
procreation is good for the species, therefore to destroy it is to place
self above humanity.

5. The Church has been set as a guard over moral teaching, especially
with regard to "those things which appertain to marriage where the inordinate
desire for pleasure can attack frail human nature and easily deceive it and lead it astray."

The Church cannot change the teaching, Ford writes, because the teaching is true and because
the Church cannot have been wrong for all these centuries and still be the Church.
The question is not whether
Casti Connubii
can be changed, because that document of 1930 merely restated what the Church had been saying all along.
If the Church can persist for centuries in error regarding a moral issue of this importance
then the Church has no authority to make any definitive moral judgments.

Ford identifies at the heart of the matter the underlying problem, that is, that
some have "New Notions of the Magisterium and Its Authority." Against the traditional
Catholic teaching that the authority of the Church to teach "is never limited to matters of 'strictly
religious concerns'" but "rather the entire matter of the natural law...[is] in her power,"
there are now theologians hold that the Church can and has erred,
that what may have been true once is no longer true, and who even go so far as
"denying to the magisterium of the Church the power [over] the consciences of the faithful."
But, Ford says, if the Church can reverse centuries of teaching and approve
contraception, then why not suicide, abortion, fornication and even adultery.

Ford next attempts to restate, in a logical manner, precisely the argument, or arguments, of those seeking to relax the teaching.
They, according to Ford, follow the teaching of the Church in reverencing the human person, however, only in "its spiritual element,
and in a partial fashion." They hold that "man's intervention in nature is not limited a priori by any absolute boundaries."
Rather, they hold that "Parts, organs, functions of man are conceived as contra-distinct from [man, and]...subordinated to him...almost
as are plants and animals." They view "Human nature...as adaptable and perfectible historically" so that "when man's fecundity
and morality have been modified, his sexual activity ought not to be changed, but rather the moral norm laid down for it."
From this they argue that Casti Connubii be reformed.

They also, according to Ford, subordinate the teaching authority of the Church to developments in culture;
restirct the magisterium to matters that are clearly part of revelation, not natural law;
say, effectively, that the Church should not teach as binding something that the majority of Catholics
have doubts about; and, demand that "in the study of nature the
magisterium will leave methods of action up to the discretion and responsibility of scientists."

The innovators hold that the morality of acts is determined by "The basic intention of the person acting" and "not necessarily in
single actions." And their morality is, extremely simple: "not to use others as a means."
Beyond that they hold that "means are morally indifferent and are to be specified by the intention of the person acting."

Addressing the question at hand, they argue that: "The existence of sterile days does not afford a sufficient solution for
modern society -- because of the conditions of life, biological anomalies, psychological disturbances, the repression of
spontaneity, the dangers to fidelity, etc. Recourse must be had to artificial ways of frustrating the natural generative power."
They conclude, that the use of contraceptives in marriage is moral because it is done with the honest intention of
making for a happy marriage in which children can be reared and educated conveniently. Even if they concede that it is evil,
they believe "it is a lesser evil." Finally, he notes, "Others think it simply is
good... because of the values and complex intention indicated above."

Against the traditional teaching they lodge these objections:

"[T]he traditional teaching, from an ignorance of biology, supposed that each individual conjugal act was by its
nature ordained to children...[had he understood this] Pius XI would not condemn such resort to artifice... when used
for legitimate motives of expressing conjugal love in union."

They also argue that the "Pontiff was not dealing with individual actions destined to the service of biological life
of a future offspring but with the whole complex of conjugal life."

They argue that "the traditional teaching concerning contraception, since it was never defined (and cannot be defined because
it is not in revelation), must be reformed, once the falsity has been demonstrated of its foundation with regard to children,
as to the primary end of marriage."

They argue that "the best doctors and married couples in modern life" say the traditional teaching is impossible to follow.

Some argue from the "principle of the lesser evil." Others seeks "to save the greater conjugal-family good, by sacrificing the lesser
good of the physiological integrity of the act." Others "apply the principle of totality" arguing that, "through the physical evil of
contraception, a psychic good may be obtained."

Ford's answers that the above arguments for change are:

(1) Faulty because removing natural law from the jurisdiction of the magisterium "does not do justice
to protect either the competence which the Church has so many times vindicated for herself for the interpretation of the natural law,
nor the Church's effective capacity of discerning the moral order."

(2) Faulty because these arguments grant human nature to the dominion of man, allowing "insufficient
place in human life for the action of the Holy Spirit and for his mission of healing sin."
Further he says, "Neither is it evident what are the great demands on virtue which are often affirmed in this new tendency."

(3) Faulty because the charge that the traditonal teaching is
rooted in the conditions of a pre-modern world are "brought out by false reasoning and false interpretations of history."

(4) Faulty because "The authenticity of the magisterium seems to be substantially violated: (a) by restricting its mission and power
beyond the limits vindicated by the Church for herself through the actions of several Pontiffs and through the First and Second Vatican Councils,...
(b) by confusing the consensus of the faithful...with the belief of the faithful...(c) by taking away from the magisterium
the authority to discern the requirements of the natural law..." [and] (d) [by proposing an argument under which]
"it would have to be acknowledged that the Holy Spirit in 1930, in 1951 and 1958,
assisted Protestant churches, and that for half a century Pius XI, Pius XII and a great part of the Catholic hierarchy did
not protect against a very serious error..."

(5) Faulty because they "lack the fundamental distinction between the sexual condition of man and the free and voluntary use of the genital faculty"
so that these arguments not only can be used to justify "use of this faculty can be turned aside in marriage...[but also]
outside of marriage." Furthermore, the reasoning is based on a faulty understanding of the former state of knowledge
regarding fertility, supposes a fault contradiction between Catholic teaching and the biology and
physiology of the sexual act, and fails to take into account that "conjugal love is above all spiritual
and it requires no specific carnal gesture."

Finally Ford points out that the promoters of change, who claim that the Church is operating from presumptions of
another era may themselves be "essentially limited by the influence of their time and culture and region
and by organized propaganda."

Turning to the consequences were the Church to change her teaching, Ford says
that admiting such a change would lead to all many of sexual sins claiming
the Church's approval.

Were the Church to reverse centuries of teaching, says Ford, if would undermine the Church's authority
to speak on moral and dogmatic matters. Furthmore, it would undermine the teaching that the Holy Ghost
assists the Church in leading the faithful to salvation. Indeed, it would amount to admiting that
for three decades the Holy Ghost was guiding the Anglican Church while the Catholic Church was in error.

To those who "say that the teaching of the Church was not false for those times. Now, however, it must
be changed because of changed historical conditions," Ford replies that "the Anglican Church was teaching precisely
[what the innovators demand] and for the very reasons which the Catholic Church solemnly denied, but
which [the innovators] would now admit."

Regarding "claims that the Church would be better off to admit her error, just as recently she has done in other
circumstances, Ford replies, "this is no question of peripheral matters...or of an
excess in the way a thing is done...[rather]...This is a most significant question which
profoundly enters into the practical lives of Christians."

Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae of the Supreme Pontiff

to His Venerable Brothers the Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and Other Local Ordinaries
in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See,
to the Clergy and Faithful of the Whole Catholic World, and to All Men of
Good Will, on the Regulation of Birth

Honored Brothers and Dear Sons, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

The transmission of human life is a most
serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly
with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to them,
even though it sometimes entails many difficulties and hardships.

The fulfillment of this duty has always
posed problems to the conscience of married people, but the recent course
of human society and the concomitant changes have provoked new questions.
The Church cannot ignore these questions, for they concern matters
intimately connected with the life and happiness of human beings.

In carrying out this mandate, the Church has always issued appropriate
documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights,
and the duties of spouses. These documents have been more copious in
recent times. \4\

When the evidence of the experts had been received, as well as the
opinions and advice of a considerable number of Our brethren in the
episcopate—some of whom sent their views spontaneously, while others were
requested by Us to do so—We were in a position to weigh with more
precision all the aspects of this complex subject. Hence We are deeply
grateful to all those concerned.

The Magisterium's Reply

6. However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could
not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing
Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was
all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was
not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and
especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this
question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on
marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.

Consequently, now that We have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us
and intently studied the whole matter, as well as prayed constantly to
God, We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to
give Our reply to this series of grave questions.

Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of
the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and
provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in
man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that
mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone,
develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another,
cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.

The marriage of those who have been baptized is, in addition, invested
with the dignity of a sacramental sign of grace, for it represents the
union of Christ and His Church.

With regard to man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood
means that man's reason and will must exert control over them.

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions,
responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously
decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and
with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children
for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further
essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral
order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the
true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood
requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities,
recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and
human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in
the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to
decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound
to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator.
The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the
constant teaching of the Church spells it out. \10\

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of,
or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent
procreation—whether as an end or as a means. \16\

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse
which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred
to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative
acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by
exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes
it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater
evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for
the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it \18\—in other
words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts
the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even
though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an
individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a
serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal
relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately
contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Recourse to Infertile Periods

16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the
objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the
moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right
and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come
within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others
ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use
artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family
are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the
education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear
reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of
human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man
is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must
be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births,
arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife,
or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may
then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive
system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are
infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least
offend the moral principles which We have just explained. \20\

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers
it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but
condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent
conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear
to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely
different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided
them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the
generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married
couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their
intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result.
But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that
husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile
period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is
not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their
married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity
toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and
authentic love.

Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their
arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for
her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very
nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.

In preserving intact the whole moral law of marriage, the Church is
convinced that she is contributing to the creation of a truly human
civilization. She urges man not to betray his personal responsibilities by
putting all his faith in technical expedients. In this way she defends the
dignity of husband and wife. This course of action shows that the Church,
loyal to the example and teaching of the divine Savior, is sincere and
unselfish in her regard for men whom she strives to help even now during
this earthly pilgrimage "to share God's life as sons of the living God,
the Father of all men." \23\

We are fully aware of the difficulties confronting the public
authorities in this matter, especially in the developing countries. In
fact, We had in mind the justifiable anxieties which weigh upon them when
We published Our encyclical letter Populorum
Progressio. But now We join Our voice to that of Our predecessor
John XXIII of venerable memory, and We make Our own his words: "No
statement of the problem and no solution to it is acceptable which does
violence to man's essential dignity; those who propose such solutions base
them on an utterly materialistic conception of man himself and his life.
The only possible solution to this question is one which envisages the
social and economic progress both of individuals and of the whole of human
society, and which respects and promotes true human values." \26\ No one
can, without being grossly unfair, make divine Providence responsible for
what clearly seems to be the result of misguided governmental policies, of
an insufficient sense of social justice, of a selfish accumulation of
material goods, and finally of a culpable failure to undertake those
initiatives and responsibilities which would raise the standard of living
of peoples and their children. \27\ If only all governments which were
able would do what some are already doing so nobly, and bestir themselves
to renew their efforts and their undertakings! There must be no relaxation
in the programs of mutual aid between all the branches of the great human
family. Here We believe an almost limitless field lies open for the
activities of the great international institutions.

In humble obedience then to her voice, let Christian husbands and wives
be mindful of their vocation to the Christian life, a vocation which,
deriving from their Baptism, has been confirmed anew and made more
explicit by the Sacrament of Matrimony. For by this sacrament they are
strengthened and, one might almost say, consecrated to the faithful
fulfillment of their duties. Thus will they realize to the full their
calling and bear witness as becomes them, to Christ before the world. \32\
For the Lord has entrusted to them the task of making visible to men and
women the holiness and joy of the law which united inseparably their love
for one another and the cooperation they give to God's love, God who is
the Author of human life.

We have no wish at all to pass over in silence the difficulties, at
times very great, which beset the lives of Christian married couples. For
them, as indeed for every one of us, "the gate is narrow and the way is
hard, that leads to life." \33\ Nevertheless it is precisely the hope of
that life which, like a brightly burning torch, lights up their journey,
as, strong in spirit, they strive to live "sober, upright and godly lives
in this world," \34\ knowing for sure that "the form of this world is
passing away." \35\

Recourse to God

For this reason husbands and wives should take up the burden appointed
to them, willingly, in the strength of faith and of that hope which "does
not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts
through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." \36\ Then let them
implore the help of God with unremitting prayer and, most of all, let them
draw grace and charity from that unfailing fount which is the Eucharist.
If, however, sin still exercises its hold over them, they are not to lose
heart. Rather must they, humble and persevering, have recourse to the
mercy of God, abundantly bestowed in the Sacrament of Penance. In this
way, for sure, they will be able to reach that perfection of married life
which the Apostle sets out in these words: "Husbands, love your wives, as
Christ loved the Church. . . Even so husbands should love their wives as
their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever
hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the
Church. . . This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and
the Church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let
the wife see that she respects her husband." \37\

Husbands and wives, therefore, when deeply distressed by reason of the
difficulties of their life, must find stamped in the heart and voice of
their priest the likeness of the voice and the love of our Redeemer.

So speak with full confidence, beloved sons, convinced that while the
Holy Spirit of God is present to the magisterium proclaiming sound
doctrine, He also illumines from within the hearts of the faithful and
invites their assent. Teach married couples the necessary way of prayer
and prepare them to approach more often with great faith the Sacraments of
the Eucharist and of Penance. Let them never lose heart because of their
weakness.